OnlyBucs

It appears that the Pirates are going to open the season with 13 pitchers and 12 position players. This roster gives the Pirates only a 4 man bench. When they play the American League in their ballpark this roster probably works since the DH Rule is involved. When the Bucs play the National League this short bench could be challenge. MLB and the Union should change the 25 man roster rule to 26 with the agreement a team only dresses 25 players each game. The team could deactivate the next days starting pitcher which would not be a problem for a team. The Union should be agreeable since 30 more players would be subject to the basic agreement.

060A0B5059505855524D57600 wrote: It appears that the Pirates are going to open the season with 13 pitchers and 12 position players. This roster gives the Pirates only a 4 man bench. When they play the American League in their ballpark this roster probably works since the DH Rule is involved. When the Bucs play the National League this short bench could be challenge. MLB and the Union should change the 25 man roster rule to 26 with the agreement a team only dresses 25 players each game. The team could deactivate the next days starting pitcher which would not be a problem for a team. The Union should be agreeable since 30 more players would be subject to the basic agreement.


You have thrown an interesting rule change out there. Need to think hard if I really like it. Just one question, why do you want to deactivate the next day's starting pitcher?



As I see it, depending on the next day's starter perhaps he could be used in the game as a pinch runner or in the case of say Brault as a pinch hitter. Why not also make it possible to deactivate a relief pitcher who may have just thrown three days in a row which is one of Clint's favorite moves.



Your idea is worth having an in-depth discussion about. Thanks for the idea.

I understand the proposal. Unfortunately, some teams would likely begin to carry 14 pitchers, particularly an extra LOOGEY. Ya know, you can never have enough pitchers to provide a manager yet one more opportunity for a situational match-up.



I do, however, believe that the proposal makes sense. The travel schedule alone is justification. Frankly, except for the day that Nova pitches, exactly what value does he have being an 'active' player on the bench?

57767E577C74130 wrote: It appears that the Pirates are going to open the season with 13 pitchers and 12 position players. This roster gives the Pirates only a 4 man bench. When they play the American League in their ballpark this roster probably works since the DH Rule is involved. When the Bucs play the National League this short bench could be challenge. MLB and the Union should change the 25 man roster rule to 26 with the agreement a team only dresses 25 players each game. The team could deactivate the next days starting pitcher which would not be a problem for a team. The Union should be agreeable since 30 more players would be subject to the basic agreement.


You have thrown an interesting rule change out there.  Need to think hard if I really like it.  Just one question, why do you want to deactivate the next day's starting pitcher? 



As I see it, depending on the next day's starter perhaps he could be used in the game as a pinch runner or in the case of say Brault as a pinch hitter.  Why not also make it possible to deactivate a relief pitcher who may have just thrown three days in a row which is one of Clint's favorite moves.



Your idea is worth having an in-depth discussion about.  Thanks for the idea.


I suggested the next day starting pitcher because I figured he would not be used for that particular game. The rule could be that it is up to the team to deactivate one player. My guess would be a pitcher would be the best player to deactivate. If a team had the extra bench player in an extra innings game possibly the chance to complete the game sooner would occur. I think adding the extra player makes more sense then starting an extra inning game with a man on second base.

There has to be a cutoff somewhere. If you increase it to 26 players in a few years it will be asked "why not a 27 man roster". A team is a team. Teams decide who they want to carry for what ever reason.



I do think the AL has a big advantage when it comes to the World Series as they have that extra bat. With that said, the numbers don't back me up as the World Series has been pretty even since the DH was developed (24 AL - 21 NL).

7874752E272E262B2C33291E0 wrote: It appears that the Pirates are going to open the season with 13 pitchers and 12 position players. This roster gives the Pirates only a 4 man bench. When they play the American League in their ballpark this roster probably works since the DH Rule is involved. When the Bucs play the National League this short bench could be challenge. MLB and the Union should change the 25 man roster rule to 26 with the agreement a team only dresses 25 players each game. The team could deactivate the next days starting pitcher which would not be a problem for a team. The Union should be agreeable since 30 more players would be subject to the basic agreement.


You have thrown an interesting rule change out there.  Need to think hard if I really like it.  Just one question, why do you want to deactivate the next day's starting pitcher? 



As I see it, depending on the next day's starter perhaps he could be used in the game as a pinch runner or in the case of say Brault as a pinch hitter.  Why not also make it possible to deactivate a relief pitcher who may have just thrown three days in a row which is one of Clint's favorite moves.



Your idea is worth having an in-depth discussion about.  Thanks for the idea.


I suggested the next day starting pitcher because I figured he would not be used for that particular game. The rule could be that it is up to the team to deactivate one player. My guess would be a pitcher would be the best player to deactivate. If a team had the extra bench player in an extra innings game possibly the chance to complete the game sooner would occur. I think adding the extra player makes more sense then starting an extra inning game with a man on second base.




A very reasonable explanation. And certainly better than the extra inning game with a man on 2B to begin the inning.

262D25292C2D367375023B232A2D2D6C212D420 wrote: There has to be a cutoff somewhere.  If you increase it to 26 players in a few years it will be asked "why not a 27 man roster".  A team is a team.  Teams decide who they want to carry for what ever reason. 



I do think the AL has a big advantage when it comes to the World Series as they have that extra bat.  With that said, the numbers don't back me up as the World Series has been pretty even since the DH was developed (24 AL - 21 NL).
The WS isn't a good indicator since the DH isn't used in every game. A more telling stat would be interleague play altho, even in that case, teams generally do better at home so the AL team's advantage isn't strictly the DH. But it's certainly an advantage to have a high priced slugger who bats every day as opposed to having a reserve off the bench in that role.

58535B575253480D0B7C455D545353125F533C0 wrote: There has to be a cutoff somewhere.  If you increase it to 26 players in a few years it will be asked "why not a 27 man roster".  A team is a team.  Teams decide who they want to carry for what ever reason. 



I do think the AL has a big advantage when it comes to the World Series as they have that extra bat.  With that said, the numbers don't back me up as the World Series has been pretty even since the DH was developed (24 AL - 21 NL).


WOW Dog!! You sure have hit the nail on the head as to why fjk's suggestion should not be considered. A great explanation for not doing it. But another reason to reject his idea is that it goes against roster construction tradition having what I will call the "One Man Taxi Squad" for each game. I never liked the DH and glad the NL does not have it. But fjk's suggestion would be easier to stomach than the DH.



Thanks for the great input on this topic.

If you want NL teams to keep an extra bat, how about a rule change where you can pinch hit once a game and leave the player who is being pinch hit for in the game? That could potentially keep pitchers in the game longer and give more at bats to bench players. It would also create a lot of strategy for when to use that option. I am not saying that I support this as it is tinkering with the game but I would rather see this than a runner on second in extra innings.

60686B7C6A6A66090 wrote: If you want NL teams to keep an extra bat, how about a rule change where you can pinch hit once a game and leave the player who is being pinch hit for in the game?  That could potentially keep pitchers in the game longer and give more at bats to bench players.  It would also create a lot of strategy for when to use that option.  I am not saying that I support this as it is tinkering with the game but I would rather see this than a runner on second in extra innings. 


To make your suggestion a bit more confusing and complicated. Why not give the manager the choice of either keeping the guy pinch-hit for (pitcher) in the game or keeping the guy who pinch-hit on the bench to pinch-hit one more time. Does any of this make sense?